August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« Iran's nuclear deceptions | Main | Cluster bombs: don't ban them »

May 27, 2008

Comments

None

So from the 30 million dollars he raised, 170000 went to family who were actually doing something for the money with regard to his "campaign". You'd have to be particularly small minded, cynical, or just plain have it in for him, to try and make that sound even close to newsworthy. I think I know where the Washington Post journalist was standing on those points.

Oliver Kamm

My word: I had the pleasure of a drink the other day with Jamie Kirchick, exposer of your candidate's bigoted past, who warned me of the speed with which Congressman Paul's adulators cross the Web.

Let me put this to you. I once played an advisory role in an election campaign where the candidate was a close relative. That election, being for a UK parliamentary constituency, was obviously of far more parochial significance than that for the Republican nomination for the US presidency, but it was - in the context of UK politics at the time - newsworthy nonetheless. I received not a penny for my efforts, nor did the other family member who was integral to that campaign. It would never have occurred to us that it might be any other way. It would have been scandalous if it had been any other way. Congressman Paul and his family obviously think differently, as is their privilege.

ortega

Imagine that someone stands for some nazi writer or philosofer (Heidegger maybe?) saying that "he believed that the state's system, hugely imperfect as he knew it to be, was the best bulwark against...comunism".
There are still two standards in what to totalitarian regimes refers.

None

I think you've got me wrong, I'm certainly not a fan of Ron Paul; merely pointing out that 80k pounds spread out across across approx 10 people is hardly newsworthy, unless you've got an axe to grind in advance.

The quick initial response was coincidental with me experimenting using google reader and noticing you had a new post as I marked newly added feeds as read.

None

I think you've got me wrong, I'm certainly not a fan of Ron Paul; merely pointing out that 80k pounds spread out across across approx 10 people is hardly newsworthy, unless you've got an axe to grind in advance.

The quick initial response was coincidental with me experimenting using google reader and noticing you had a new post as I marked newly added feeds as read.

None

Sorry for the double post. Comment was initially not showing and I clicked back to see if I filled in the capchca or whatever its called correctly...

George

To get one thing out of the way first, Ron Paul is a nutter and a nasty one at that. However, the comparison with Derek Conway seems a bit odd. In Conway's case it was taxpayers' money. Big difference.

Paul

Exactly. Isn't Ron Paul allowed to spend his own money as he pleases? This particular bit of nepotism doesn't strike me as being a matter of great concern, for the reason that George cites. In fact, of all the dodgy things about and surrounding Ron Paul, him employing his family is the least of it.

Jonathan

"the comparison with Derek Conway seems a bit odd. In Conway's case it was taxpayers' money. Big difference"

Also in Conway's case, the scandal was that his son did not actually do anything for the money. Employing family members on expenses is pretty common in the UK and allowed under parliamentary rules.

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/more-than-100-mps-employ-family-members-on-expenses-815411.html?r=RSS).

Not your greatest piece of analysis

Tate Donovan

Mr. Ravenhill is correct. We should also understand why those poor East German heroes had to build that "anti-fascism protection barrier" in Berlin. But not condone it of course, that would be morally reprehensible.

Mr Grumpy

Presumably Mr Ravenhill also 'understands' the Germans who backed Nazism as a 'bulwark' against the spread of communism.

hojo0710

Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, so why does he continue to draw adverse comment? Is there something in his platform that arouses fear, lest it should lead to a bit of thinking on the part of the electorate? And that this might in turn cause more people to question the wisdom of the ever increasing size and cost of government?
As for employing his family in the campaign, who else would work as hard as they must have for such piddling amounts?

hojo0710

Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination, so why does he continue to draw adverse comment? Is there something in his platform that arouses fear, lest it should lead to a bit of thinking on the part of the electorate? And that this might in turn cause more people to question the wisdom of the ever increasing size and cost of government?
As for employing his family in the campaign, who else would work as hard as they must have for such piddling amounts?

The comments to this entry are closed.